After spending the night in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, NSA leaker Edward Snowden did not board the Aeroflot flight he had been expected to take to Havana. His plan was apparently to fly to the Cuban capital and then to go on to Ecuador (where he had requested asylum). Snowden's whereabouts remain unknown.

It may be that Snowden and his friends from WikiLeaks—who helped him secure a “special refugee travel document” last week from Ecuadorian authorities and assisted with his trip from Hong Kong to Moscow—have an alternate travel route in mind. There is also the possibility that he is being detained by Russian authorities.

The State Department had revoked Snowden’s American passport on Friday, which is normal for persons with “felony arrest warrants.”

“Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status,” Jen Psaki, a State Department spokesperson told Ars. “Persons wanted on felony charges, such as Mr. Snowden, should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than is necessary to return him to the United States. Because of the Privacy Act, we cannot comment on Mr. Snowden's passport specifically."

The Washington Post pointed out that Aeroflot’s regularly scheduled flight would have taken the commercial jet over Norwegian, Canadian, and American airspace before landing in Havana: “But if the plane uses a different flight plan—north toward the Arctic and then south over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean—the Russian authorities will have directly participated in Snowden’s escape."

US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to reporters in India where he is on a state visit, said it would be “deeply troubling” if China or Russia had adequate notice of Snowden’s plans before his departure.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

242 Reader Comments

Havana would have been the stupidest place to stop as Guantanamo being right there Cuba is probably crawling with CIA agents.

They were probably feeding the US bullshit with that flight and he is probably inside an embassy at Moscow or chilling in Iceland.

It's really fucking sad when the majority of a nation is cheering for an accused traitor on the run from their own government.

*edit*

I mean that it is sad that the American government has fallen so far from the values of its nation, that there is no small number of citizens actively cheering for it (the government) to fail in its attempts to capture an accused traitor.

The Washington Post pointed out that Aeroflot’s regularly scheduled flight would have taken the commercial jet over Norwegian, Canadian, and American airspace before landing in Havana: “But if the plane uses a different flight plan—north toward the Arctic and then south over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean—the Russian authorities will have directly participated in Snowden’s escape."

So... are they saying that they'd force the plane to land if it flew over US airspace?

If "they" believed he was on the plane, it would likely be intercepted by fighters and directed to land somewhere with a long enough runway to handle the aircraft. If you believe Ecuador can grant asylum based on its sovereignty, you must believe the US has the right to patrol its own airspace.

All of that said, it's unlikely he'd pre-announce his route via commercial flight.

According to the WSJ, Snowden seems to have been in Ecuador custody since the moment he landed in Moscow (literally driven off the tarmac in a diplomatic vehicle).

Since Ecuador doesn't seem willing to stuff Assange into a diplomatic pouch and "mail" him to Ecuador, they are unlikely to do the same for Snowden. However, with Snowden's whereabouts unknown, it's possible they will attempt to smuggle him in some other fashion.

Snowden clearly didn't think ahead... he could very easily have boarded a flight to Equador long before actually leaking anything. Back in the days when his passport was valid.

No kidding.

Edit: fixed link.

Once Equador, or some 3rd nation, issues him a new passport, he'll be Mobile Like a Boss.

The hell he will. Even if he makes it to Ecuador, he will be stuck there the rest of his life. And he will have to live carefully under guard while there as well, possibly on government property, because I don't think the CIA would have any bones about nabbing him from Ecuadorian soil if they really wanted to try that.

But as others have said, the media conversation is all about Snowden, when really he is a distraction from the real issue of the Patriot Act and the need to repeal it and other lovely invasions of privacy/degradation of rights that have been enacted since 9-11.

This hypocritical outrage about Edward's traveling plans is absurd. What does the location where you change planes have to do with someone's political opinion about total surveillance? Sure, people like Feinstein and Kerry would have prefered he travelled via Houston, Texas and then right into a US torture chamber.

The left is a bunch of hypocrites. The right is no better with "Fox News analyst Ralph Peters said Monday that Edward Snowden's leaks constituted "treason" punishable by execution."

Why is the Hunt for Snowden more important than the things he revealed? I don't care if he likes dogs in clown costumes. It doesn't change the fact that our government is trashing the constitution in the name of a war that will never end. The most depressing part? 50% of the population thinks that is is just fine.

It's like Orwell's worst fears are coming true and 50% of the population think it is awesome.

Apparently our government will follow the law when it suits them. It's just hypocritical that they'll follow an Act and not the Constitution. I would think that Snowden, having played with and worked for spies, would have picked up a few tricks of the trade from them, those being misdirection and disinformation. If he does divulge anything really egregious that can't be spun with "plausible deniability", then they'll act shocked, do a thorough investigation that will find no wrongdoing, then go back to business as usual. Nothing, aside from his death or incarceration, is going to happen from this. Construction hasn't stopped in Utah, the Patriot Act hasn't been revoked, and we still have no control over our government. People want security and don't mind a little loss of freedom to get it. They don't realize that there is no such thing as a little loss of freedom. It is a snowball that is rolling downhill, gathering in size and speed as it goes, and it's rolling directly at the Constitution.

The NSA/CIA/FBI/Homeland Security spend billions spying on ordinary Americans yet they can't seem to find Snowden even when he does webcasts and interviews and basically says "here I am, come and get me".

Almost as bad as all the intelligence screw ups that happened with the Boston bombers.

I noticed Obama recently met with a privacy concerns watchdog group. In private, of course.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Snowden didn't plan his "escape" route long ago and is traveling by train to Bulgaria or Khazakstan right now.

This hypocritical outrage about Edward's traveling plans is absurd. What does the location where you change planes have to do with someone's political opinion about total surveillance? Sure, people like Feinstein and Kerry would have prefered he travelled via Houston, Texas and then right into a US torture chamber.

Maybe Snowden should return to the US, this bastion of Internet freedom, where every single byte of data is sifted through by the NSA regardless of citizenship or nationality or privacy or freedom to use this resource without fear of persecution? Maybe he should return here and face ~50 years (maximum OKAY?) in a federal prison for doing things what would have been applauded by many Americans only 40 years ago.

Snowden seeking refuge wherever he can find it, even if the nation in question violates some of his core values, hardly negates the moral repugnance of what the United States has done.

I'm really sick of media and government throwing out the hypocrisy defense. It's like saying if Daniel Ellsberg had been a pedophile then it would have invalidated his leak of the Pentagon Papers, which is ridiculous. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who points it out.

The government actually broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and went thru his records to find embarrasing dirt on Ellsberg.

"The public is divided over the NSA surveillance program itself. About as many approve (48%) as disapprove (47%) of 3the “government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts.”" From a Pew Research report.

The Washington Post pointed out that Aeroflot’s regularly scheduled flight would have taken the commercial jet over Norwegian, Canadian, and American airspace before landing in Havana: “But if the plane uses a different flight plan—north toward the Arctic and then south over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean—the Russian authorities will have directly participated in Snowden’s escape."

So... are they saying that they'd force the plane to land if it flew over US airspace?

If "they" believed he was on the plane, it would likely be intercepted by fighters and directed to land somewhere with a long enough runway to handle the aircraft. If you believe Ecuador can grant asylum based on its sovereignty, you must believe the US has the right to patrol its own airspace.

All of that said, it's unlikely he'd pre-announce his route via commercial flight.

Revoking the right of Russian commercial carriers to overfly US teritory would no doubt lead to a quick quid pro quo and affect many asian destinations by US carriers.

The most depressing part? 50% of the population thinks that is is just fine.

It's like Orwell's worst fears are coming true and 50% of the population think it is awesome.

Quote:

Says a lot about the government if someone they call traitor is supported by a majority of the people. Usually you only find that occuring in dictatorships.

These statements are kind of contradictory, are there any figures to back up either of the "50%" quotes?

I didn't say 50%, I didn't say any number at all.

Even if I did; you want statistical data, go ask a politician, I'm just an observational Citizen noticing a clear lack of support for the Government's persecution of snowden & general positivity that this information was released.

If "they" believed he was on the plane, it would likely be intercepted by fighters and directed to land somewhere with a long enough runway to handle the aircraft. If you believe Ecuador can grant asylum based on its sovereignty, you must believe the US has the right to patrol its own airspace.

All of that said, it's unlikely he'd pre-announce his route via commercial flight.

Revoking the right of Russian commercial carriers to overfly US teritory would no doubt lead to a quick quid pro quo and affect many asian destinations by US carriers.

It's not revoking anyone's privilege of overflight to intercept a specific aircraft suspected of carrying a fugitive, so long as the aircraft is allowed to refuel and continue on its way in a reasonable timeframe.

Though the specifics vary by mode, it's conceptually the same if someone was traveling by aircraft, boat, train or bus through a country. Common carriers are not liable for transporting fugitives so long as they allow for "reasonable" inspections.

What are you people rabbling about now? Is this sort of behavior from our comrades in Washington a deviation from the norm? NO! For generations now they have willfully ignored when they did wrong in exchange for hunting down someone who showed that they were wrong. It's the politics of our beloved Republic.

Snowden clearly didn't think ahead... he could very easily have boarded a flight to Equador long before actually leaking anything. Back in the days when his passport was valid.

He won't need his US passport if Ecuador grants him asylum. They would either provide him with a passport from their own country or give him some diplomatic travel papers. I would assume he wasn't on the plane because his asylum request is still making it's way through bureaucratic channels.

I find it laughable that the US government has made a formal request to Cuba to deport Snowden if he lands there. Why the hell would a country you've embargoed for the better part of a Century help you out?

The Obama administration is burning a lot of bridges to capture Snowden (or looking back over bridges that have already been burnt), which seems somewhat unnecessary now that the the damage resulting from Snowden's leaked information is already done (barring future revelations).

Does the US government really think that China or Russia cares that the US is upset with them for not detaining Snowden? If anything, the leaked information undermines the US's moral standing, whatever is left of it, to condemn China and Russia for their human rights abuses. Why would China or Russia have any interest in shutting up Snowden when his leaks have the side effect of assisting them?

I find it laughable that the US government has made a formal request to Cuba to deport Snowden if he lands there. Why the hell would a country you've embargoed for the better part of a Century help you out?

Because Cuba is trying to get the embargo lifted. They are currently working all sorts of various deals right now for prisoner exchanges and what not. Now that the old-guard of Cuban-"Americans" are dieing off and being replaced by younger people, there is a chance that relations with Cuba will be normalized like they are with Russia and China.

Right. Because the data subject, Ed Snowden, has clearly invoked his right to privacy on the question of whether the American authorities have revoked his passport; hasn't he?

How can we stop the US Privacy Act/ UK Data Protection Act/ etc. which are supposedly designed to protect the rights of individual data subjects, from being abused as a humbug excuse merely to protect the interests of large organizations, or as a way to bamboozle people who don't understand legal technicalities and who haven't read the Act?Probably 99% of the people who have given me this excuse over the years have no idea what these Acts actually stipulate: they're just making up any excuse that sounds like it might cover their own back side, to avoid getting into trouble with their employer for giving out incriminating information that the data-subject actually has a legal right to know! What really makes my blood boil is being given this excuse when I am the sole data subject and when I have already gone through a strict and stilted identification process!

How can we combat this type of abuse, and educate people about their rights/ responsibilities?

Because of the Privacy Act, we cannot comment on Mr. Snowden's passport specifically."

Glad to see that the US Government is concerned about citizens' privacy.

And then an unnamed official immediately confirmed his specific passport had been revoked. (Reported in other sources.) Possibly the same official quoted here, just didn't want to say it on the record. Things often happen that way.

Don't assume that something has happened when it hasn't. The next story reported in the media could very well carry the headline - "Edward Snowden arrested and turned over to U.S. officials at U.S. embassy in Moscow." or similar.

It is not unheard of for the Russian authorities to physically take an American citizen to the U.S. embassy to 'clarify' his status when he does not have a verifiable or valid passport.

Given how few friends it seems the US has after this leak, I don't see Russia going out of their way to do the US any favours.

In any case, the <s>Assange Fan Club</s> I err mean Wikileaks say they have him somewhere safe, in a country they aren't disclosing.

There were legitimate channels open to Snowden that he made no attempt to use. He should have kept some serious leverage in the event those channels turned out to be unreliable, but the point is he never even tried to correct the problems while within the system.

Though I would LOVE to see you explain how a low level IT guy for a defense contractor would influence a decade old systemic violation of rights that every person read in and in control of the program supports, bipartisanly.

The most depressing part? 50% of the population thinks that is is just fine.

It's like Orwell's worst fears are coming true and 50% of the population think it is awesome.

Quote:

Says a lot about the government if someone they call traitor is supported by a majority of the people. Usually you only find that occuring in dictatorships.

These statements are kind of contradictory, are there any figures to back up either of the "50%" quotes?

I didn't say 50%, I didn't say any number at all.

Even if I did; you want statistical data, go ask a politician, I'm just an observational Citizen noticing a clear lack of support for the Government's persecution of snowden & general positivity that this information was released.

No, you said a majority, so you said it was over 50%. This poster must have assumed you weren't just making up statistical data to help your point. Sorry to have inconvenienced you.

No doubt if Kerry every happens to be fleeing probably torture and life-long incarceration, he'll make his travel plans based on how well the nations he travels through match all his ideals.

Hopefully, Snowden has just got everyone to follow a red herring, rather than has been captured

Snowden was right to do what he did and exposed some very questionable practices. Although we are still a great country it is upsetting how many people in our government in powerful positions abuse that power.

We all know that they will torture the hell out of Snowden and make him suffer, I really do pray that the U.S. does not capture him and that he can find safety in another country. Even if he is in the wrong torturing and persecuting individuals does not make us better as a country. Instead of focusing on this individual they should be focusing on the wrong doers in our government that he exposed and questioning these government programs.

Anybody remember how John Kerry first came to national attention? He was a US Navy officer who spoke out against the Vietnam War. At one time, some called John Kerry a traitor. I guess the moral is, JK thinks that only he should be allowed to speak his conscience against the US Government.